A Digest of Case Law on the Human Rights of Women - Asia Pacific ...

Humaira Mehmood v The State and others (Pakistan)
The respondents, Moazzam Ghayas and Malik Abbas Khokar (the petitioner’s
father), argued that Mst. Hamaira had broken Hudood law, and at the same time,
the law <strong>of</strong> god, which is beyond the scope <strong>of</strong> the Court.
The other respondent, the State, argued that the police did not go beyond their duty
in their activities. The Court may not quash a case unless there is no evidence or the
charges are malicious. In this case, the police were within their duty to investigate
the abduction charges and to investigate any other <strong>of</strong>fences that appeared to have
occurred.
Decision
Both petitions were successful. In the first petition the Court held that a marriage
without consent is invalid. It noted that if two people indicate they have a consensual
marriage, there is a presumption <strong>of</strong> truth based on what they say, rather than what
a third party might say. Further, the Court held that a marriage with a person who
is already married is invalid. The Court found that because the marriage between
Mst. Humaira and Mehmood Butt was valid, it could not uphold a case against Mst.
Humaira for adultery.
In the second petition brought by a human rights activist, the Court stated that it
does have the power to intervene in police action or to quash a case when there is
evidence <strong>of</strong> bad faith on the part <strong>of</strong> the police. In this case, the Court found that
there was ample evidence <strong>of</strong> bad faith by the police. Firstly, it cited the false case
against “Rabia”, and the arrest <strong>of</strong> Mst. Humaira despite police knowledge that “prearrest
bail” had been granted. The Court also agreed with the petitioner that it was
unlikely that a husband would wait two months to report the abduction <strong>of</strong> his wife.
Secondly, the Court acknowledged the police’s abusive treatment <strong>of</strong> Mst. Humaira
and Mehmood Butt upon their arrest. Finally, it found that the threats by police to the
person who performed the marriage ceremony between Mst. Humaira and Mehmood
Butt were also evidence <strong>of</strong> bad faith on the part <strong>of</strong> the police.
The Court made a number <strong>of</strong> orders in response to its finding <strong>of</strong> bad faith. It
convicted a police <strong>of</strong>ficer, who had lied in court, <strong>of</strong> the <strong>of</strong>fence <strong>of</strong> obstructing the
process <strong>of</strong> justice. The <strong>of</strong>ficer was sentenced to fifteen days in jail and a fine <strong>of</strong> 5000
rupees. The Court also ordered the Inspector General <strong>of</strong> Police to delegate a highranking
<strong>of</strong>ficer to investigate and proceed against other police <strong>of</strong>ficials involved with
this case. Finally, the Court ordered that the medical superintendent at the hospital
in which Mst. Humaira was confined conduct an inquiry and proceed against any
<strong>of</strong>ficials responsible for abusing Mst. Humaira.
The Court noted that its findings accorded with a number <strong>of</strong> international instruments
that protect the rights <strong>of</strong> women. It noted that Pakistan is a signatory to CEDAW
24